Major changes are coming to Medicaid. Are you ready?

The Community Service Society of New York (CSS) and our Community Health Advocates (CHA) program hosted this webinar to help New Yorkers prepare for new Medicaid eligibility rules.

You can watch the recording below, download the slides, and check out Your Roadmap to New Federal Policy Changes. For one-on-one assistance, call the CHA helpine at 888-614-5400, option 3.

Topics covered in this webinar include:

• Changes to Medicaid eligibility rules
• New work and community engagement requirements
• Coverage renewals every six months

Resources for Navigating Medicaid Changes

• Download Webinar Slides
• Visit Our Roadmap to HR1 Federal Policy Changes
• Call 888-614-5400 for help
•  

How is federal legislation changing Medicaid?

Visit Your Roadmap to New Federal Policy Changes to learn more about how HR1 is affecting New Yorkers' health insurance.

Medicaid y Usted: Lo Que Necesita Saber Para Proteger Su Cobertura Médica (10 Diciembre, 2026)

Acompáñenos para aprender cómo prepararse, mantener su cobertura y encontrar atención médica asequible en un seminario web gratuito en el 10 de Diciembre. Inscríbese aquí.

There seems to be an overwhelming focus on the impact AI will have on white-collar jobs in the immediate future. But I worry deeply about the industries in New York that provide jobs to millions of low-income workers, many of whom are Black and Latino and are financially ill-equipped to face what might be coming. An AI wave is about to hit us, and our government leaders should begin redoubling their efforts to protect those who will be most at risk of financial calamity.

The latest unemployment figures underscore the urgency. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the nation’s Black unemployment rate rose to 7 percent in September 2026—nearly double the 3.6 percent rate for white workers and well above the overall rate of 4.2 percent. That disparity should sound an alarm. A rise in Black unemployment can be a warning of broader labor-market weakness, not simply a problem confined to one community. One month’s figures do not establish a national trend or prove that AI is responsible. But they make clear that Black workers are confronting an already unequal labor market as this technological transformation unfolds. For New York, the challenge is to prevent AI-driven disruption from deepening that insecurity.

New York has already taken some steps to mitigate the negative impacts of AI technology on the labor market. Under the New York Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (NY WARN) Act, New York became the first state in the nation to require employers to disclose when artificial intelligence plays a role in mass layoffs. In March of this year, Governor Hochul also launched the FutureWorks Commission to Guide Response to Impacts of AI on Workers Across New York, which is tasked with proposing solutions to protect our workforce from the disruptive changes in the labor market caused by automation and the increased adoption of AI by companies.

At the legislative level, state lawmakers are also proposing new laws to address these challenges. One of those is the New York Workforce Stabilization Act, which would require certain businesses to conduct and submit AI impact assessments to the Department of Labor (DOL) before deploying AI systems. Another bill, the AI Labor Information Act, which passed both chambers earlier this year and awaits Governor Hochul’s signature, would require certain businesses to annually report to the DOL how they are using artificial intelligence and the impact it is having on hiring.

It’s hard to predict the exact magnitude of the AI wave that will inevitably hit our labor market. The Office of the New York City Comptroller has attempted to forecast a few scenarios for New York City in a report released earlier this year. The report estimates a 50 percent probability that AI could result in negative outcomes, including slower economic growth and job displacement, particularly among white-collar and entry-level workers.

The first signs of AI-driven job displacement may already be evident in the city’s stagnant job growth. According to a report by the Center for an Urban Future, the total number of available entry-level jobs in the city fell 37 percent between 2022 and 2024. And in 2025, only 33,400 new private-sector jobs were added, representing a 0.8 percent rate of growth that was largely driven by low-paying jobs that offer few benefits and limited stability.

There seems to be wide acknowledgment—and growing concern—about the impact AI could have on white-collar, knowledge-based jobs. Yes, these jobs may be among the most exposed to disappearing in the near future. But we cannot ignore the not-so-distant threat AI poses to the industries that employ millions of low-income New Yorkers, who already struggle to make ends meet and save for retirement, as revealed by the most recent data from the Community Service Society’s (CSS) 2025 Annual Survey of Housing and Economic Security.

Low-paying jobs might still be growing, but we don’t know for how long. We may still be far away from robots replacing health care aides, but what about those working in food preparation, cashiers at retail stores, rideshare drivers, food delivery couriers, and other platform-based workers? 

The question is not whether AI will transform New York’s labor market—it already is—but whether we will be prepared for the consequences. New York has taken some important first steps, but transparency and data collection alone is not enough. We need a proactive strategy that puts workers, particularly those living on the financial margins, at the center of our response. That means investing in retraining and workforce development, strengthening the social safety net, and ensuring that companies benefiting from AI-driven productivity also contribute to the communities and workers who bear its costs. If the AI wave is coming, we cannot wait until it crashes over millions of New Yorkers before we act. 

David R. Jones, Esq., is President and CEO of the Community Service Society (CSS), New York’s leading advocate for low-income New Yorkers for more than 175 years. The views expressed in this column are solely those of the author. The Urban Agenda is available on the CSS website at www.cssny.org

A new report from the Community Service Society of New York (CSS), The Impact of Hospital Consolidation on Health Care Affordability in New York State, describes how state policies that encourage hospital consolidation (mergers or acquisitions between hospitals) affect health care costs and charges in New York. It builds on a 2025 report by CSS describing why New York’s health care system is so unaffordable. While the 2025 report demonstrated the impact of hospital closures on communities, this report examines the impact on hospital costs and charges.  It is the first New York State-specific report to look at the impact of hospital consolidation.

Overall, the report finds that New York State’s multi-decade policy encouraging hospital consolidation may have had the unintended consequence of increasing charges for payers and consumers. The report's methodology examined hospital mergers across four regions of New York State and compared hospital charges and costs for three common procedures: appendectomies, vaginal deliveries, and knee replacements.

Key findings from the analysis of state, regional, and procedure-level impacts of hospital consolidation show:

1. Hospital-reported charges increased 1.5 times as fast at hospitals that merged, compared to hospitals that did not merge.
2. Hospital consolidation was associated with increased hospital-reported charges and comparatively static hospital-reported costs. Across New York regions, charges at merged hospitals increased 1.3 to 4.5 times as fast as than costs.
3. Patients needing common procedures, such as appendectomies, deliveries, and knee replacements, at merged hospitals were charged significantly more than patients at non-merged hospitals.

"This report makes clear that hospital consolidation is contributing to the affordability crisis facing New Yorkers. When mergers lead to higher prices without improving care, patients and families pay the price. As Chair of the New York State Senate Health Committee, I believe New York must strengthen oversight, increase transparency, and pursue policies that put affordability and access at the center of our health care system. I thank the Community Service Society for its leadership in identifying practical solutions to help make health care more affordable for all," said State Senator Gustavo Rivera, Chair of the New York State Senate Health Committee.

“As this study shows, hospital charges have grown faster in hospitals that have merged, and this trend has had an outsized impact on access to and affordability of care in rural areas and urban neighborhoods of color,” said David R. Jones, President and CEO of CSS. “With the ongoing crisis in health care brought on by the federal H.R. 1 legislation, we call on our state legislators to enact some simple measures to keep hospital charges at merged hospitals in line with costs to protect New Yorkers already burdened by some of the highest health care costs in the nation.”

“Hospital charges have continued to outpace inflation, while the costs to hospitals to provide care have remained relatively static,” said Mia Wagner, MPA, Director of Health Policy at CSS, report co-author. “New York policymakers should address these skyrocketing charges by considering interventions to cap post-merger price increases.”

“This report shows how New York’s decades-old push to encourage hospital consolidation has left payers and consumers with an unaffordable health care system," said Elisabeth R. Benjamin, MSPH, JD, Vice President of Health. “It is time for policymakers to fashion meaningful policy responses that will improve health care affordability in our State.”

Key Recommendations:

The report calls for a more rigorous policy environment that can curb consolidation-related price increases. Specifically, it identifies three targeted policies to improve transparency and affordability absent transformative policy changes at the national or state level—such as the adoption of Medicare for All or the New York Health Act. Interim policies that could abate merger-related price increases include:

1. Making New York’s All-Payer Database publicly available and requiring policymakers to use this data when approving consolidations and setting health insurance premiums
2. Requiring the Public Health and Health Planning Council to establish post-merger caps on price increases when it approves mergers and consolidations
3. Enacting a site-neutral policy, such as the Fair Pricing Act, to control rising charges at hospital outpatient departments.

New York had the second-highest net loss of hospitals in any state between 2001 and 2023. Hospital consolidation and closures are not felt equally across communities. Evidence indicates that consolidation has the greatest impact on rural communities and urban neighborhoods of color, whose already-impeded access to health care services is often disproportionately impacted by post-merger unit closures and price increases. Additionally, studies show that, because of these increased charges, payers and patients pay significantly higher prices for the same services with no apparent improvements to patient care.

This new report was co-authored by Alison Goldberg, Health Policy Analyst at CSS; Mia Wagner, Director of Health Policy at CSS; Zinnia Finn, Health Policy Associate at CSS; and Elisabeth R. Benjamin, Vice President of Health Initiatives at CSS.

The next phase of H.R.1 will target Medicaid beneficiaries, some of whom will face new work/community-engagement requirements and more frequent, six-month eligibility renewals. Although New York cannot change these federal policies, there is a great deal that government agencies, health care providers, and nonprofit organizations can do to help people who will face increased barriers to maintaining their Medicaid coverage.

Beginning January 1, 2027, certain New York Medicaid beneficiaries will have to demonstrate that they are working, in school, or performing qualifying community service for at least 80 hours per month, unless they qualify for an exemption. H.R.1 also requires states to conduct eligibility redeterminations for certain Medicaid expansion adults at least every six months rather than annually.

According to a recent report from the New York Attorney General’s Office, the state estimates that at least 475,000 New Yorkers could lose Medicaid coverage because of the new work/community-engagement requirements and more frequent eligibility checks. These changes could increase New York’s uninsured population by as much as 45 percent, from roughly 1 million to 1.45 million people.

These projected losses do not necessarily mean that all these New Yorkers will become ineligible for Medicaid. Some could lose coverage because of daunting paperwork. They might miss a letter or a text, fail to document their eligibility, demonstrate compliance with the new requirements, or complete the renewal process on time. This is where I believe government agencies, health care providers, and nonprofit organizations can make a meaningful difference.

At the Community Service Society, we are working with elected officials and nonprofit partners to educate consumers about the upcoming changes so they understand what they will face and, most importantly, know where to turn for help. As part of this public awareness campaign, CSS will host a series of virtual webinars, beginning  on October 29, for any New Yorker who wants to learn more about the new Medicaid eligibility rules and find resources to help them comply with new requirements. We will also soon create a Keep New York Covered page on the CSS website where New Yorkers can find this information and additional educational resources.

Government agencies are also stepping up. New York State has created a “Stay Covered” campaign specifically to help New Yorkers prepare for the H.R.1 changes, along with a communications toolkit for partners to disseminate information rather than relying solely on direct government notices. New York City is going a step further by offering virtual and in-person information sessions and trainings for community organizations, health care providers, and others who work directly with affected New Yorkers.

The stakes are high. New York has spent more than a decade building one of the nation’s strongest health care systems and reducing the number of uninsured residents. We now face the risk of losing some of that progress. We cannot change the federal law, but we can help ensure that confusion, paperwork, and lack of information do not become the reason a New Yorker loses coverage. That is a challenge government, health care providers, and nonprofit organizations must meet together to ensure as many New Yorkers as possible remain connected to the health care they need.

David R. Jones, Esq., is President and CEO of Community Service Society (CSS), the leading advocate for low-income New Yorkers for more than 175 years, and a member of the MTA Board. The views expressed in this column are solely those of the author. The New Majority is available on the CSS website at www.cssny.org.

Senator Cordell Cleare, who represents Harlem, spends much of her time fighting to fix state and city housing projects one at a time. Her bill with Brooklyn Assemblymember Emily Gallagher, the Permanently Affordable Social Housing for New Yorkers Act (PASHNY), would end that fight for good. It would create a public builder that develops and owns permanently affordable homes across our state, setting rents by what people earn, and putting tenants in control of their housing future.

The reality of unaffordable housing in many Black and Latino communities in New York is staggering. In one Central Harlem ZIP code, the median Black household earns about $53,700 a year. Meanwhile, citywide, the 2023 Housing and Vacancy Survey found that New York added nearly half a million households earning over $100,000 since 2021. Households earning under $25,000 saw the steepest decline, and 56 percent of renters who moved into previously vacant apartments earned $100,000 or more. Over the past two decades, New York City lost nearly 200,000 Black residents. Harlem was once 98 percent Black; by 2015 it was roughly 60 percent.

The existing “affordable” housing system hasn’t reversed this because it isn’t built for the people leaving. 

Here’s why: affordability is pegged to Area Median Income (AMI), a regional figure inflated by wealthy suburbs. Black and Latino households in the city earn just 48 and 49 percent of AMI on average, and most renters earn 59 percent, according to Community Service Society (CSS) analysis. Yet 80 percent of AMI for a family of three has jumped from $76,880 in 2019 to $122,160 today, a 59 percent increase that Harlem paychecks haven’t matched. Program term sheets, the documents that set how affordable a project will be, have barely budged. Harlem has been on the front lines of the fight to end the displacement of communities of color.

The former Lincoln Correctional Facility, at 31-33 West 110th Street, shows how this plays out. In 2023 the state picked a private team to turn it into 105 homes called “Seneca,” after Seneca Village, the Black community razed to build Central Park. The homes were priced for households earning 80 to 100 percent of AMI. Senator Cleare calculated what that meant: about $3,000 a month for a two-bedroom at 80 percent, $3,700 at 100 percent. She rallied the community. A year later, the state deepened affordability: homes now start at 40 percent of AMI, with nearly a third for households up to 60 percent. That’s a real improvement, and it shouldn’t have taken a pressure campaign. 

Harlem can’t rally for every building. A state development authority would have made Lincoln, and every project after it, better from day one, for four reasons:

First, deep affordability is foundational. At least a quarter of these government-built homes must go to households earning 30 percent of AMI or less. A plurality must serve households at or below 80 percent, and no more than a third can be for the highest income earners. The biggest difference is that this new authority would set rents at 25 percent of household income, with increases capped at two percent a year unless needed for operations. CSS modelling projects that half of all the social housing units would serve households at or below 50 percent of AMI. Under the last state plan, that figure was 8.5 percent.

Second, the community is in control with residents occupying seats on the authority’s governing board. And unlike today’s subsidized deals that carry regulatory agreements that eventually expire, PASNAY homes never expire. 

Third, it’s cheaper. If we think of a 100-unit project costing nearly $63 million to build: a combination of a 15 percent developer fee and various fees associated with the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, including syndication, could add more than $10 million in transactional costs to this project’s budget. In New York City, soft costs, including legal, financing and consulting, run about 20 percent of hard costs.

Fourth, government-built projects will scale fast and efficiently. Today, our tax dollars go out and don’t come back. State authority-built buildings stay public, and their revenue flows back into a revolving fund to build the next ones.

This idea of a state-run housing developer isn’t just theory; it is a tested practice. Montgomery County, Maryland’s Housing Opportunities Commission uses a revolving Housing Production Fund to build mixed-income buildings it owns and runs. Seattle voters created a public social housing developer in 2023 and funded it in 2025. New York did it too: the state’s Urban Development Corporation built more than 30,000 homes in the 1970s.

New York State’s last five-year housing plan in 2022 invested more than $25 billion in a system that spends all of its time incentivizing affordable housing development. Putting just a fraction of that, $1 billion a year, towards an authority as laid out in Senator Cleare and Assemblymember Gallagher’s bill means Harlem never has to fight for a say again, because the community would be doing the building itself.

David R. Jones, Esq., is President and CEO of the Community Service Society (CSS), New York’s leading advocate for low-income New Yorkers for more than 175 years. The views expressed in this column are solely those of the author. The Urban Agenda is available on the CSS website at www.cssny.org

According to a new survey by the Community Service Society of New York (CSS), 83 percent of New Yorkers supported the Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA). Intro 905, currently under consideration by the City Council, would enact COPA in New York City.  

We asked the question: “Some people have proposed giving certain nonprofit organizations and affordable housing providers the first chance to buy apartment buildings when they are put up for sale. In some cases, public funding could also be used to keep those buildings permanently affordable. Do you support or oppose this proposal?”

The response demonstrates both deep and broad support for COPA.

• The proposal was viewed favorably by 87 percent of Democrats, 84 percent of Independents, and 70 percent of Republicans.
• It scored highest among Latino and Black New Yorkers at 89 percent and 88 percent favorability, respectively, but also scored well among Asian (82 percent) and White (76 percent) respondents.
• Favorability was solid across the city, from a high of 86 percent support in Brooklyn to a still-strong low of 76 percent in Staten Island.
• The measure polled robustly among young New Yorkers, with 83 percent of respondents under 30 voicing their support, but it was also backed by 79 percent of New Yorkers over 64.
• There is room for additional public education around COPA. Fourteen percent of respondents said they did not know enough about the bill to support or oppose it (excluded from the sample).

This survey indicates that New Yorkers support COPA and are interested in seeing distressed and affordable buildings move away from speculators and toward responsible ownership. CSS calls on the City Council to pass Intro 905 and for the Mamdani administration to sign it into law immediately.
 

Technical Resources

This survey, conducted by the polling firm SSRS, polled 2,148 New York City residents during the months of August and September 2026. It has a margin of error of 2.8 percentage points.

Survey crosstabs:

###

The Community Service Society of New York (CSS) has worked with and for New Yorkers since 1843 to promote economic opportunity and champion an equitable city and state. We power change through a strategic combination of research, services, and advocacy to make New York more livable for people facing economic insecurity. By expanding access to health care, affordable housing, employment opportunities, debt assistance, and more, we make a tangible difference in the lives of millions. Join us at www.cssny.org.

Updated: October 19, 2026

Please see the Q&A for community-based organizations (CBOs) interested in responding to this RFP. 

Original Publication Date: October 7, 2026

Through this Request for Proposals (RFP), the Community Service Society of New York (CSS), seeks a non-profit community-based organization (CBO) that serves the Western New York area of the State to participate in New York’s independent health insurance ombudsman program for mental health and substance use disorder care. CSS operates the Community Health Access to Addiction and Mental Healthcare Project (CHAMP), on behalf of the New York State Behavioral Health Ombudsman Office. CHAMP educates and assists New Yorkers in overcoming health insurance barriers to substance use disorder and mental health treatment. Through this RFP, CSS anticipates awarding one contract to a local CBO to provide direct assistance with health insurance issues to individuals in its community as well as education and outreach about the availability of CHAMP services.

Download RFP

Taxpayers forked over $53 million in the first six months of this year to settle lawsuits alleging New York Police Department (NYPD) misconduct, according to an analysis by the Legal Aid Society. While those cases are holdovers from prior administrations, if the payouts continue at pace under Mamdani, 2026 will be the fourth consecutive year in which settlements of lawsuits alleging police misbehavior topped $100 million.

Mamdani must take action to end the NYPD’s status quo: a long-standing, well-documented tradition of human rights violations and widespread unconstitutional stop-and-frisks. At the very least, the mayor has an obligation to send the message that abuse of the city’s citizens will no longer be treated simply as the byproduct of police work. Good policing does not have to come at the expense of New Yorkers’ civil rights.

The mayor earlier this year took a step in the right direction by appointing Jennifer Jones Austin chairwoman of the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB), which is essential to good law enforcement.  Now the New York City Council must immediately make appointments to the three unfilled CCRB seats for representatives from the Bronx, Brooklyn and Staten Island. 

Jones Austin, a respected pillar of the city’s social justice community, is the type of credible voice an independent CCRB needs after former Mayor Eric Adams’s administration killed CCRB cases and tinkered with the NYPD’s discipline matrix in ways that lowered penalties for police officers found to have committed serious offenses.  

The CCRB plays an important role as a check on the NYPD as well as a catalyst for public discourse. Filling all 15 seats strengthens the CCRB’s legitimacy, which is necessary to maintain public trust in civilian oversight of the NYPD.  For some tragic reason, elected city and state officials, and community activists, no longer speak out publicly against police excesses.  

The  NYPD settlements cited by the Legal Aid Society represent only a portion of the amount the city spends each year on allegations of police misconduct. The New York City Comptroller also settles cases before formal lawsuits are filed. According to the most up-to-date figures, the comptroller paid $427 million between fiscal years 2019 and 2023 to settle personal injury police action claims, which include allegations of improper police conduct, such as false arrest or imprisonment, or excessive force.

The settlements so far this year are a stain on the legacy of Adams, a supporter of gung-ho policing tactics he condemned as an activist police captain before he ran for public office. He emphasized “quality of life” policing and the deployment of specialized units that targeted mostly innocent Blacks and Latinos for legally dubious police pat-downs and arrests in the subways.

Police stop-and-frisks deemed “unconstitutional” by a U.S. District Court and, most recently, by a federal court-ordered monitor, ballooned under Adams. Police reported an average of 25,500 stops annually over the past two years, compared with merely 8,947 in 2021, the year before Adams took the oath of office.

Mamdani can begin to cut back on illegal searches and overaggressive police tactics by rethinking how to use officers who flooded the subways in recent years.  A $77 million cash infusion from the state in 2025 has run out, leaving New York City on the hook for police overtime that resulted in a tsunami of fare evasion arrests and desk appearance tickets for other minor violations.  

Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch pledged to the City Council that she would implement stricter measures against officers who ignore stop-and-frisk reporting requirements. But she also suggested the NYPD has taken significant steps to increase accountability and update policies that could create a greater risk of litigation, including regular meetings to review compliance issues like use of force and new restrictions on vehicle pursuits. Tisch’s doublespeak seems to signal the  NYPD would continue to double down on targeting people of color in the misguided belief that abusive tactics are the best way, or maybe the only way, to deter crime.  

Since Mamdani took office, his approach to policing has not been all that different from the policies he railed against during the 2025 campaign. Let’s hope the mayor has not fallen into the trap of all of his predecessors since the late 1980s – Edward Koch, David Dinkins, Rudolph Giuliani, Michael Bloomberg, Bill de Blasio and Eric Adams.  All of them tolerated or gave a wink-and-nod approval to the ugly police tactics. 

I’ve said this before, and it needs to be repeated: No one is saying the NYPD should stop enforcing the laws. Just stop singling out Black and Hispanic young men. 

David R. Jones, Esq., is President and CEO of the Community Service Society of New York (CSS), the leading voice on behalf of low-income New Yorkers for more than 175 years. The views expressed in this column are solely those of the writer. The Urban Agenda is available on CSS’s website: www.cssny.org.

Earlier this year, CSS surveyed 727 New Yorkers who had applied for or renewed CityFHEPS. Of these, 550 had been determined eligible, and 497 were currently housed with the subsidy. We asked about their experiences applying for and maintaining CityFHEPS, searching for housing, and resolving problems with their subsidy.  

Our findings speak directly to several issues the Committee is considering today.
 

First, we want to emphasize that CityFHEPS is highly valued by recipients.

Ninety-three percent said the program was worth the effort required to apply for and maintain it. And when asked what they would change, more than one-quarter said they would change nothing or instead offered positive feedback.

At the same time, respondents also shared the administrative burdens and delays they encounter. 
 

The application process generally works, but respondents still experienced delays and unnecessary hurdles.

Most respondents said the instructions were clear, found it easy to gather the required documents, and knew that their application or renewal had gone through. Still, more than half had to submit the same documents more than once and 44 percent said the process took a long time to complete.

As one respondent described what that experience felt like: “The waiting period is very long and stressful, and it’s hard to get updates on where my application stands.” Another called for “faster processing that eliminates months of waiting.”
 

Receiving CityFHEPS does not mean quickly securing housing.

More than half of our respondents had trouble finding an apartment within CityFHEPS rent limits, and among those who secured housing, 38 percent spent five months or longer searching. Source-of-income discrimination was widespread, with 76 percent reporting some form of discrimination such as a landlord or broker not responding after the respondent mentioned CityFHEPS, or being told that they don’t accept housing vouchers. This discrimination contributed to shopping letters expiring before households could find an apartment.

As one respondent said, “Finding a place that accepts the program is nearly impossible.”
 

Finally, CityFHEPS payment interruptions can put housing stability at risk.

Twenty-five percent of respondents with CityFHEPS said their rental assistance had stopped at some point in the previous three years even though they believed they still qualified. More than one-third said these interruptions lasted four months or longer. Among those experiencing an interruption, 83 percent accumulated rent arrears, 65 percent were taken to housing court, and 56 percent reported ultimately being evicted.

One respondent told us: “Thank you first of all for my place in Brooklyn, I’m having a problem with CityFHEPS paying my rent on time. I just moved in not that long ago. But they are not sending payments on time. I don’t want to lose my place that I just got.”

Our research does not tell us exactly what every legislative or administrative solution should look like. But it does show the importance of timely application decisions; understanding how long it takes voucher holders to secure housing; and having systems that allow tenants, landlords, and DSS to identify and resolve administrative payment problems before they threaten otherwise stable tenancies. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and share findings from our CityFHEPS research.

The brief, `Faster Processing and Clearer Communications’: What New Yorkers’ Experiences Tell Us About Improving CityFHEPS, draws on data from a survey of 2,000 New Yorkers who had applied for public benefits in the past three years, including 727 who applied for or renewed CityFHEPS and 550 who had been determined eligible for the program. More than 64,000 households currently receive CityFHEPS vouchers. Most participants qualify for the subsidy while staying in a Department of Homeless Services (DHS) shelter, while approximately one in five receives the subsidy as an eviction prevention measure.

Overall, survey respondents reported positive experiences accessing their CityFHEPS benefits, while also identifying opportunities to simplify the application and renewal process.  And while the findings suggest that respondents generally understand the program and its requirements, the CSS brief shows where relatively practical administrative changes could help more New Yorkers successfully use the benefit and stay housed.

“Placing struggling families in the shelter system is not only expensive, but traumatic,” said Council Member Sandy Nurse. “CityFHEPS has kept thousands of New Yorkers in their homes and helped many more transition out of the shelter system and into stable housing. I’m thankful for the Community Service Society’s brief, which reaffirms what we all know by now: CityFHEPS is a lifeline for recipients and we need to cut the red tape holding it back.”

“CityFHEPS is a transformative program that moves many New Yorkers out of shelters into safe, affordable homes, and helps New Yorkers at risk of eviction stay housed,” said David R. Jones, President and CEO of Community Service Society of New York. “By addressing persistent administrative hurdles and enforcing housing discrimination laws, the city can make the program more efficient and keep more vulnerable families out of the city shelter system.”

“Our findings demonstrate that CityFHEPS is an effective program for keeping people safely housed when they can access it and use it,” said Yvonne Peña, CSS Public Benefits and Housing Policy Analyst and report co-author. “But applicants continue to face administrative barriers, illegal housing discrimination, and payment delays that put them at risk. These are fixable problems that should be addressed to help families in vulnerable situations move into a place they can call home or avoid eviction and entering the shelter system.”

This week, the New York City Council’s General Welfare Committee will hold hearings on four CityFHEPS-related bills. Some of the proposed legislation takes aim at issues raised in the survey responses, including addressing administrative delays and payment problems that result in avoidable housing loss.  The CSS brief was co-authored by Yvonne Peña and Rachel Swaner, CSS Vice President of Policy, Research and Advocacy.

Key Findings

CityFHEPS is highly valued by recipients

 Among eligible respondents, 93 percent said the value of CityFHEPS was worth the effort required to apply for and maintain it. More than one-quarter of respondents, when asked what they would change, said they would change nothing or offered positive feedback about the program.

“I think CityFHEPS is amazing and it saves lives.” — Study participant

The application process generally works, but unnecessary administrative burdens remain.

Most respondents—about eight in ten—found instructions clear, found it easy to gather documents, and knew their application or renewal went through. At the same time, 53 percent had to submit the same documents more than once, 49 percent felt stressed or overwhelmed, and 44 percent said the process took a long time.

“It takes over a month to just get a call back; by that time people are getting evicted.” — Study participant

Housing discrimination is a major obstacle to using the housing subsidy.

76 percent reported some form of source-of-income discrimination. Among those who experienced discrimination, 52 percent had their shopping letter expire before finding an apartment, compared with just 7 percent of those who did not experience discrimination.

"CityFHEPS would definitely work better if all landlords actually stuck to the law and accepted rental assistance vouchers.” — Study participant

When CityFHEPS payments are interrupted, the consequences can be severe.

One-quarter reported that their assistance had stopped at some point despite believing they remained eligible. Among those experiencing an interruption, 83 percent accumulated rent arrears, 65 percent were taken to housing court, and 56 percent were ultimately evicted.

“The payout process must be shortened. I signed my lease and payments were not sent to the landlord until 4 months later. I almost lost the apartment.” — Study participant

Key Recommendations

Make CityFHEPS easier to access and maintain.

Simplify applications and renewals, reduce duplicative document submission, improve case tracking, and make eligibility determinations easier to understand.

Make it easier to successfully use the voucher.

Strengthen enforcement against source-of-income discrimination and extend CityFHEPS shopping letters to at least six months.

Prevent administrative payment problems from putting stable housing at risk

Reduce payment delays; improve tools for identifying and resolving payment problems; and strengthen coordination among DSS/HRA, Housing Court, and eviction prevention programs.

CityFHEPS works. These survey results further reinforce the critical role the program plays in mitigating the city’s housing crisis. Taken together with our previous finding that 95 percent of recipients credited CityFHEPS with helping them remain stably housed, we urge policymakers to consider both legislative and programmatic modifications that can ensure that the program continues to assist vulnerable New Yorkers with their housing needs.

###

The Community Service Society of New York (CSS) has worked with and for New Yorkers since 1843 to promote economic opportunity and champion an equitable city and state. We power change through a strategic combination of research, services, and advocacy to make New York more livable for people facing economic insecurity. By expanding access to health care, affordable housing, employment opportunities, debt assistance, and more, we make a tangible difference in the lives of millions. Join us at www.cssny.org.

There seems to be an overwhelming focus on the impact AI will have on white-collar jobs in the immediate future. But I worry deeply about the industries in New York that provide jobs to millions of low-income workers, many of whom are Hispanic and Black and are financially ill-equipped to face what might be coming—and I think our government leaders should too. An AI wave is about to hit us, and the state should begin redoubling its efforts to protect those who will be most at risk of financial calamity.

New York has already taken some steps to mitigate the negative impacts of AI technology on the labor market. Under the New York Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (NY WARN) Act, New York became the first state in the nation to require employers to disclose when artificial intelligence plays a role in mass layoffs. In March of this year, Governor Hochul also launched the FutureWorks Commission to Guide Response to Impacts of AI on Workers Across New York, which is tasked with proposing solutions to protect our workforce from the disruptive changes in the labor market caused by automation and the increased adoption of AI by companies.

At the legislative level, state lawmakers are also proposing new laws to address these challenges. One of those is the New York Workforce Stabilization Act, which would require certain businesses to conduct and submit AI impact assessments to the Department of Labor before deploying AI systems. Another bill, the AI Labor Information Act, which passed both houses earlier this year and awaits Governor Hochul’s signature, would require certain businesses to annually report to the Department of Labor how they are using artificial intelligence and the impact it is having on hiring.

It’s hard to predict the exact magnitude of the AI wave that will inevitably hit our labor market. The Office of the New York City Comptroller has attempted to forecast a few scenarios for New York City in a report released in May of this year. The report estimates a 50% probability that AI could result in negative outcomes, including slower economic growth and job displacement, particularly among white-collar and entry-level workers.

The first signs of AI-driven job displacement may already be evident in the city’s stagnant job growth. According to a report by the Center for an Urban Future, the total number of available entry-level jobs in the city fell 37% between 2022 and 2024. And in 2025, only 33,400 new private-sector jobs were added, representing a 0.8% rate of growth that was largely driven by low-paying jobs that offer few benefits and limited stability.

There seems to be wide acknowledgment—and growing concern—about the impact AI could have on white-collar, knowledge-based jobs. Yes, these jobs may be among the most exposed to disappearing in the near future. But we cannot ignore the not-so-distant threat AI poses to the industries that employ millions of low-income New Yorkers, who already struggle to make ends meet and save for retirement, as revealed by the most recent data from the Community Service Society’s (CSS) 2025 Annual Survey of Housing and Economic Security.

Low-paying jobs might still be growing, but we don’t know for how long. We may still be far away from robots replacing health care aides, but what about those working in food preparation, cashiers at retail stores, rideshare drivers, food delivery couriers, and other platform-based workers? Just across the river, Jersey City residents can already get their food delivered by a Uber robot, and no tip is required.

The question is not whether AI will transform New York’s labor market—it already is—but whether we will be prepared for the consequences. New York has taken some important first steps, but transparency and data collection alone is not enough. We need a proactive strategy that puts workers, particularly those living on the financial margins, at the center of our response. That means investing in retraining and workforce development, strengthening the social safety net, and ensuring that companies benefiting from AI-driven productivity also contribute to the communities and workers who bear its costs. If the AI wave is coming, we cannot wait until it crashes over millions of New Yorkers before we act.

David R. Jones, Esq., is President and CEO of the Community Service Society (CSS), New York's leading advocate for low-income New Yorkers for more than 175 years, and a member of the MTA Board. The views expressed in this column are solely those of the author. The New Majority is available on the CSS website at www.cssny.org

The report by Mark Levine, the city’s comptroller, found that 60 percent of the city’s wealth was concentrated in only 10 percent of the population, intensifying the city’s affordability crisis.

This disparity plays out along racial lines. Last year, the median income for Black New Yorkers was $60,000, compared to $110,000 for white city residents.  At the wage level, the racial gap was $16 per hour.   Even among the city’s municipal workforce, where greater parity might be expected, workers of color earned 84 cents per dollar compared to white workers.

The comptroller’s analysis suggests Mayor Mamdani must focus on jobs and workforce training that unlocks upward mobility for New Yorkers. His prescription must look beyond tax hikes on the rich, increasing the minimum wage, and holding the line on rents.  The most effective steps to drive down inequality long-term are giving more New Yorkers opportunities to enter the middle class through good-paying jobs and ownership of durable assets.

Specifically, the mayor must reform the current system of public, private, and non-profit players that recruit, train, and place thousands of New Yorkers annually into entry-level jobs. These “pathway” roles can be precarious, with starting wages low and retention volatile. As a result, workers’ climb up the ladder toward economic security often produces only temporary gains that rarely, if ever, translate into wealth.

More New Yorkers need to get a foot in the door. That means apprenticeships at Wall Street financial giants, health insurers, pharmaceutical companies, engineering and technology firms, particularly artificial intelligence giants flush with investment capital. Everyone involved should work more closely with City University of New York, which already has strong STEM curricula, to expand its offerings of specialized training programs.

On top of investments in jobs, New Yorkers need safe and stable homes. I strongly support the pending New York City Council bill —the Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA) — that would give government-vetted, qualified entities the first chance to buy troubled properties. The bill, sponsored by Brooklyn Councilmember Sandy Nurse, would specifically exclude small owner-occupied buildings with fewer than six apartments or parents passing properties on to their children.  A complimentary bill pending at the state level, called the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA), builds on COPA. Both should be fast-tracked by the City Council and New York State Legislature.

A home is the greatest asset most individuals will own in their lifetime, but only one-quarter of Black and less than one-fifth of Latino city residents own their homes, compared to nearly half of white New Yorkers.  COPA and TOPA would open the door to social housing, which can especially help low-income people by creating new opportunities for ownership, control and long-term stability.  Residents of social housing can put the money they are not spending on unaffordable rents or mortgages into other investments, be they social (education, training), financial (retirement vehicles, college savings accounts), or physical (equipment, business start-up funds). 

Mayor Mamdani’s other announced programs are on target. They range from raising the city’s minimum wage to $30 to the creation of an Office of Worker Power to empower labor unions and local rank-and-file employees. Those steps would enhance his ambitious portfolio of affordability goals, including universal childcare, low-cost grocery stores in every borough, and free bus rides.

Income inequity means something more than money or people in poverty. It speaks to social and economic injustices and persistent racial disparities in health care, wealth, housing, employment, and wages. Nearly two-thirds of New Yorkers are unable to meet the city’s cost of living—coming up $40,000 shy annually on average, according to the city’s True Cost of Living Measure. In addition to struggling to pay skyrocketing rents and high food prices, some New Yorkers still struggle to afford bus and subway fares. They’re digging themselves into a financial hole.

Ironically, New York’s lowest wage earners did not take a pay cut. Wage and salary inequity only slightly increased over the past five years, according to the comptroller’s report. Pay grew fastest for lower-wage positions, such as food preparation and healthcare support. However, when factoring in inflation, real income fell for the bottom 90 percent of earners, while it grew 16.2 percent for the top one percent, the comptroller’s report said.

Low-income workers are not to blame. These are not individual failures; the system is stacked against anyone who lacks college degree or lacks social connections with the people doing the hiring, no matter how hard they try. 

Mamdani must keep an eye on the prize: New Yorkers need tangible wealth and better job prospects. Without them, too many of our neighbors will struggle into the future to afford basic necessities.

David R. Jones, Esq., is President and CEO of the Community Service Society of New York (CSS), the leading voice on behalf of low-income New Yorkers for more than 175 years and a member of the MTA Board. The views expressed in this column are solely those of the writer. The Urban Agenda is available on CSS’s website: www.cssny.org.

Since 1843, the Community Service Society of New York (CSS) has promoted economic opportunity and well-being for low-income New Yorkers through research, policy advocacy, and direct services. We have been at the forefront of advocacy for better housing conditions since the beginning, from the city’s first tenement laws in the 1800s to contemporary organizing for strong tenants’ rights.
 

Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA) – Int. 905

Councilmember Sandy Nurse’s Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA) would give a list of vetted buyers—including community-based nonprofits and Minority- and Women-Owned Business Enterprises (MWBEs)—the first chance to bid on a subset of distressed properties when they come up for sale.

Right of first refusal laws like Int. 905 promote neighborhood and building stabilization, as well as housing affordability. Funding for such acquisitions can come from already-existing New York City programs, like Neighborhood Pillars. COPA would allow trusted purchasers to bring long-distressed buildings up to code and preserve them as affordable rentals or limited-equity cooperatives. This law could help pave the pathway to social housing in New York, as noted in Block by Block.
 

SAFER Homes Act – Int. 657

Like COPA, Block by Block explicitly names Int. 657 as a social housing conversion tool. SAFER Homes is sponsored by Housing Committee Chair Sanchez and, if passed, will stabilize some of the most distressed buildings in the city, hold bad landlords accountable, all while preserving homeowner equity and providing a new avenue for responsible ownership transfer.

SAFER Homes reforms the Third Party Transfer (TPT) program, giving the City stronger tools to intervene when landlords fail to pay their taxes and neglect their buildings. Int. 657 improves TPT’s targeting and expands the program’s definition of physical and financial distress. It also expands notice and outreach efforts to landlords, providing them with more options to address disrepair in their buildings.

At the same time, SAFER Homes also expands communication with tenants and provides them with opportunity to participate before decisions about their homes are made.
 

Block by Block: The Housing Plan for a New Era

Mayor Mamdani's sweeping housing plan covers a lot of ground over 112 pages and eight chapters. The innovative parts of the plan rest on its genuine focus on improving living conditions for tenants, a core constituency for this administration. My colleagues and I at CSS look forward to tracking and supporting the administration’s efforts to improve code enforcement, speed up cases against negligent landlords in housing court, and inform tenants of their rights, including the right to good cause eviction protection.

The administration’s capital commitment is unprecedented. The mayor's executive budget for fiscal years 2026 through 2030 includes $22 billion in capital funding for the housing plan: $7 billion for affordable housing development, $4.9 billion for affordable housing preservation, and $5.6 billion for NYCHA. Yet still, New York’s mayors struggle with what public policy scholar Alex Schwartz calls "the daunting math" of the City's affordability crisis. No matter how many public dollars you throw in to stimulate private development, the rents are not going to be affordable for the low-income New Yorkers without ongoing operating support like rental assistance. 

The plan’s limitation is its attempt to follow Mamdani's predecessors and chase yet another development goal without building out a public development option, like Seattle's nascent Social Housing Development Authority, or finding another way to maximize the public's role in how affordable housing gets built in New York City. Without it, the city will be stuck on the hamster wheel of private development that has failed to fully deliver for New Yorkers since Koch's housing plan got underway more than forty years ago.

CSS is calling on the City Council to pass both COPA and SAFER Homes before the end of the year and to expand the city’s commitment to social housing production and preservation.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. If you have any questions, please contact me at omironova@cssny.org.

The Community Service Society of New York (CSS) commends Governor Kathy Hochul and Department of Financial Services Superintendent Kaitlin Asrow for their leadership in making health insurance more affordable for New Yorkers.

Today, the Department of Financial Services announced the 2027 approved premium increases of 6 percent in the individual market and 8 percent in the small group market. These approved premium increases cut insurers' requests by 70 percent in the individual market and 66 percent in the small group market, saving consumers $324 million and $1.25 billion, respectively. See the announcement here. The approved rates respond to many of the concerns outlined by Health Care For All New York (HCFANY). See HCFANY comments on the 2027 rate requests here.

CSS also applauds members of the legislature for their leadership advocating for reduced premium increases and elevating consumers' concerns. See the letter authored by Senator Gustavo Rivera and Assembly Member Jessica González-Rojas here.

###

The Community Service Society of New York (CSS) has worked with and for New Yorkers since 1843 to promote economic opportunity and champion an equitable city and state. We power change through a strategic combination of research, services, and advocacy to make New York more livable for people facing economic insecurity. By expanding access to health care, affordable housing, employment opportunities, debt assistance, and more, we make a tangible difference in the lives of millions. Join us at www.cssny.org.

For decades, New York City has allowed these twin problems of distressed property flipping and expiring affordability to fester—in Harlem, in Washington Heights, and across communities of color throughout this city.  It is time for New York City’s elected leaders to stand up and proclaim: enough!

Next week, on September 9th, the City Council will hold a hearing on a bill that would address these twin problems and give reputable operators a chance to intervene. 

The Community Opportunity to Purchase Act, or COPA, is sponsored by Councilmember Sandy Nurse of East New York, Brownsville, and Bushwick, a well-known champion for tenants and Community Land Trusts. Modelled on similar bills in San Francisco, San Diego, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C., New York City’s COPA would give a list of government-vetted qualified entities—including community-based nonprofit affordable housing developers, as well as a great many minority- and women-owned businesses—the first chance to buy troubled properties when they come up for sale. 

Funding for such acquisitions can come from already-existing New York City programs, like Neighborhood Pillars, a de Blasio-era effort that tenant and community organizations fought to revive in the 2025 budget. Once the new owners purchase a building through COPA, they would be eligible for grants, low-interest loans, and technical assistance from the city to bring the buildings up to code and preserve them as affordable rentals or limited-equity cooperatives. This law could help pave the pathway to social housing in New York, turning perennially troubled rentals into safe, affordable homes for long-term New Yorkers and new immigrants alike.

Contrary to some critics’ allegations, COPA would not affect small homeowners or parents passing properties on to their children. The bill explicitly excludes owner-occupied buildings with less than six apartments, like the one my parents owned and I grew up in, and it does not cover transfers between family members, as when a parent passes a property on to their child. It also includes a carve out for sales that need to happen quickly in order for owners to avoid financial hardship. The bill only applies to properties in the greatest distress and those with expiring affordability arrangements, such as buildings built with Low-Income Housing Tax Credits that—without further intervention—expire after a period of time.

COPA puts a circuit breaker into a real estate system which has long enabled crumbling buildings to change hands behind anonymous Limited Liability Corporations and has allowed once-affordable buildings to surge to sky-high market rates.

If readers are feeling a bit of déjà vu, that sensation is justified. Last year the City Council did, in fact, pass COPA alongside a slew of other housing bills, but, in a frenzy of largely destructive final actions, Mayor Adams vetoed COPA on his way out the door. Now the City Council has a chance to bring the bill back to the floor and send it to Mayor Mamdani, who has signaled his support for the legislation by including it in his administration’s housing plan, Block By Block.

If the Council passes COPA and the mayor signs it into law, the effects could be transformative for New York City. 

If you have lived in your neighborhood for some years, you can readily envision the impact a bill like COPA could have made if it were in place years ago. Take a moment to imagine all the buildings in your neighborhood that have fallen into disrepair and been subject to frequent flipping, and the buildings where affordability protections were allowed to lapse. Remember all the people who used to live there but were since displaced by either formal evictions, informal harassment, or the endless grind of substandard conditions.

Now picture a world where we passed legislation like COPA many years back. How many of those buildings would now be thriving and affordable? How many of those long-lost neighbors might still be vibrant parts of your community?

It may be too late to bring them all back home, but this year the City Council has a chance to make sure this story does not keep repeating into the future. Instead of allowing buildings to flip or rents to surge, New York can preserve affordability and promote community ownership. Our communities cannot afford to let this opportunity slip away again.

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published in the New York Daily News.

David R. Jones, Esq., is President and CEO of the Community Service Society (CSS), New York’s leading advocate for low-income New Yorkers for more than 175 years. The views expressed in this column are solely those of the author. The Urban Agenda is available on the CSS website at www.cssny.org

As the cost of living continues to strain household budgets, a new study from the Community Service Society of New York (CSS) sheds light on how low-income New Yorkers manage financial insecurity, cope with unexpected expenses, and navigate a complex web of financial institutions, public benefits, and community resources.

CSS's 2025 Annual Survey of Housing and Economic Security found that 60 percent of low-income New Yorkers say they cannot make ends meet or are barely getting by. More than half lack emergency savings, and a similar share report they could not or probably could not cover a $400 emergency expense. Three quarters are not saving for retirement.

To better understand how low-income New Yorkers navigate these circumstances, CSS conducted an exploratory qualitative study involving six focus groups with 41 city residents. Participants shared how they manage limited resources, make financial decisions, and navigate barriers to financial stability.

“I feel like every day the prices for living—housing, eating, everything—is just going up. So, if prices are going up and minimum wage is not going up, how can we be financially stable? Even if you’re doing everything that you need to do.”     
        — Study participant

“No New Yorker should have to live in fear that their next emergency will be the one to  break the bank,” said New York City Council Speaker Julie Menin. “At a time when too many New Yorkers are struggling to make ends meet, lowering the cost of living has been central to my priorities as Speaker and to this Council’s work. CSS’s new report confirms what we’ve already been tackling through initiatives like the expansion of Fair Fares and CityFHEPS and the creation of the first-ever Office of Insurance Accountability. The Council is committed to reducing the structural costs that drive financial insecurity as we continue to build a city that’s more affordable for every New Yorker.” 

“Every day, my office works with New Yorkers who are trying to make ends meet and also trying to navigate complicated systems to get the benefits and services they qualify for,” said Council Member Gale A. Brewer. “Government has a responsibility to make those systems work better. Someone who loses a job, faces a rent increase, or has an unexpected medical expense should not also have to fight through unnecessary paperwork and confusing eligibility rules to get help. CSS understands this firsthand. Their staff does an excellent job helping New Yorkers navigate these systems, and this report shows why that work is so important. We need to make benefits easier to navigate and invest in the community organizations that people trust to guide them through these systems.”

“New Yorkers deserve financial systems that are easy to navigate and access to support systems to help them better understand benefits and services they qualify for. It is our job in government to cut through the red tape to get the help they need,” noted Council Member Harvey Epstein. “The report by CSS shows that struggling to make ends meet is not always due to individual failings but often due to structural problems keeping them behind. I am committed to making these systems easier so that countless New Yorkers get the help they need to thrive, and I am grateful to CSS for being such a strong leader and partner in that fight.”  

“No one should have to choose between putting food on the table, paying their rent, and preparing for unexpected expenses,” said DCWP Commissioner Samuel A.A. Levine. “This report underscores the importance of ensuring that New Yorkers have the protections, resources, and financial tools they need to make informed decisions and build greater financial security. DCWP will continue to work to deliver economic justice for all New Yorkers.”

“The experiences relatedin this study show that financial insecurity is primarily driven not by individual shortcomings, but by structural challenges that frustrate the efforts of New Yorkers to achieve stability," said David R. Jones, President and CEO of CSS. "The real-life stories of the struggles people face can help policymakers, financial institutions, and service providers develop solutions to better support people managing financial insecurity."

“What this research shows is that good financial decisions matter, but they can’t make an unaffordable life affordable,” said Rachel Swaner, Vice President of Policy, Research, and Advocacy at CSS. “People need an economy and financial system that allow those decisions to pay off.”
 

Key findings from the study include:

• Low-income New Yorkers demonstrate remarkable resourcefulness in managing financial insecurity, making thoughtful and adaptive financial decisions despite extremely limited resources—challenging common assumptions that financial hardship stems from poor financial decision-making. 
• Consumers are expected to navigate an increasingly complex financial marketplace, despite opaque products and little proactive guidance from banks and fintech providers. 
• The mismatch between incomes and the cost of living is a major barrier to financial security. 
• Trusted community organizations serve as essential navigators of financial and public systems. 

Many participants described the difficulty of getting ahead despite careful financial planning:

“I try to save the most that I can […], but when you have to dip into your savings and you see the numbers dwindling, that changed my whole mind frame, too, on necessity versus wants.”

Participants were wary of the trustworthiness of big banks and fintech services. Several were unsettled that services like Cash App operate outside the regulatory protections of regular banks:

“They’re not banks, you know. […] If you read the fine text, they’re not responsible for your money.”  

Participants also offered practical ideas for improving financial well-being. They called for financial education to begin earlier in life, greater access to personalized financial coaching and guidance, expanded opportunities for job training and employment, broader access to affordable financial services such as credit unions, and wages that better reflect the cost of living.

Community-based organizations that assisted with the benefits application process were identified by participants as extremely helpful: 

“I actually applied for my programs through […] Fifth Avenue Committee, and they just make applying for assistance with compassion and empathy and humanity. And it’s just such a better experience than going, because I’ve gone to the HRA (Human Resources Administration) office and it’s very challenging."

The report makes the following recommendations: 

1. Reduce the structural costs—particularly housing and healthcare—that drive financial insecurity.  
2. Strengthen consumer protections and increase transparency in the financial marketplace. 
3. Invest in trusted community-based organizations that integrate financial guidance, systems navigation, and advocacy.  
4. Expand access to asset-building opportunities. 
5. Modernize financial education to equip people with the knowledge and critical skills to understand their rights, navigate financial and public systems, and advocate for themselves. 

About the Study: Researchers conducted six focus groups in June 2025 with 41 participants recruited through community-based organizations serving low-income New Yorkers. Participants represented a range of ages, racial and ethnic backgrounds, and income levels, and shared their experiences through both in-person and virtual discussions.

###

The Community Service Society of New York (CSS) has worked with and for New Yorkers since 1843 to promote economic opportunity and champion an equitable city and state. We power change through a strategic combination of research, services, and advocacy to make New York more livable for people facing economic insecurity. By expanding access to health care, affordable housing, employment opportunities, debt assistance, and more, we make a tangible difference in the lives of millions. Join us at www.cssny.org.

That is why the recent expansion of the Fair Fares NYC program—raising eligibility from 150 percent to 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level—is a landmark victory for working-class New Yorkers.

Since its inception in 2019, Fair Fares has served as an economic equalizer, offering a crucial 50 percent discount on subway, bus, and Access-A-Ride fares to low-income residents. But with the cost of living continuing to press hard against low-wage households across all five boroughs, the program was no longer reaching far enough up the income ladder to protect struggling families.

The expansion of Fair Fares would not have been possible without the bold leadership of the Mamdani Administration, alongside the NYC Council Speaker and the entire City Council. By pushing the eligibility limit to 200 percent of the federal poverty line (an annual income cap of $31,920 for an individual or $66,000 for a family of four), city leadership has opened the door for approximately 1.3 million working-age New Yorkers to take advantage of the Fair Fares program. An estimated 45 percent of newly eligible residents are regular commuters, meaning this expansion will directly lower transportation costs for nearly 500,000 daily workers.

This expansion will make a real difference in people’s lives. In a 2026 CSS survey of over 1,600 low-income New Yorkers receiving public benefits, the impact of discounted transit was unmistakable: 92 percent of Fair Fares recipients reported that the program makes moving around New York City vastly easier. And 81 percent emphasized that the money saved at the turnstile goes straight toward fundamental household essentials like rent, food, and utility bills.

When we make public transit affordable, we are not just lowering commuting expenses, we are keeping families housed and fed.

But even with half-priced fares, 64 percent of current Fair Fares users report that transit remains a heavy financial burden. As one Queens resident shared with CSS researchers, "Even with half off, it's 3 bucks a day for a round trip. That's a lot."

To fully realize the promise of an equitable city, we must build on the momentum created by the Mayor and City Council by adopting key future reforms:

Automate Enrollment: Streamline access by automatically enrolling New Yorkers who already qualify through SNAP, Cash Assistance, or CityFHEPS housing vouchers.
Zero Fares for the Lowest Income: Make public transit entirely free for households earning below 150 percent of the federal poverty level.
Raise the Cap to 300% FPL: Extend half-priced fares to include all minimum-wage workers across New York City.
Protect Seniors on Access-A-Ride: Eliminate the age-64 cutoff for Access-A-Ride users so elderly residents are not forced back to paying full fare.
Improve affordability and reliability: Adopt free buses for all New Yorkers and increase investments in improvements, particularly in communities with limited transportation options.

The expansion of Fair Fares NYC proves that our city can lead the nation in compassionate, common-sense policy. We owe deep gratitude to the Mamdani Administration, the City Council Speaker, and the Council at large for turning vision into reality. Together, they have proven that an affordable transit system is within our reach. Now let’s keep moving forward.

David R. Jones, Esq., is President and CEO of the Community Service Society (CSS), New York's leading advocate for low-income New Yorkers for more than 175 years, and a member of the MTA Board. The views expressed in this column are solely those of the author. The New Majority is available on the CSS website at www.cssny.org

Every weekday, the city’s buses and subways carry more than five million riders, connecting workers to jobs, students to schools, patients to health care, and families to opportunity. This vast transit network is not merely a transportation system. It is the economic lifeblood of New York City and the surrounding region, powering commerce, reducing congestion, and sustaining the dynamism that makes New York one of the world’s great economic engines

It is also true that transportation costs represent an unavoidable expense that can put a strain on the financial lives of those struggling to make a living in the most expensive city on the planet. That is why the recent expansion of the Fair Fares discount public transit program — raising eligibility from 150 percent to 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level —is a landmark victory for working-class New Yorkers.

Since its launch in 2019, Fair Fares has served as an economic equalizer, offering a crucial 50 percent discount on subway, bus, and Access-A-Ride fares to low-income New York City residents. But with the cost of living continuing to press hard against low-wage households across all five boroughs, the program was no longer reaching far enough up the income ladder to protect struggling families.

The expansion of Fair Fares would not have been possible without the strong leadership of the Mamdani Administration, alongside the NYC Council Speaker and the entire City Council. By pushing the eligibility limit to 200 percent of the federal poverty line (an annual income cap of $31,920 for an individual or $66,000 for a family of four), city leadership has opened the door for approximately 1.3 million working-age New Yorkers to take advantage of the Fair Fares program. An estimated 45 percent of newly eligible residents are regular commuters, meaning this expansion will directly lower transportation costs for nearly 500,000 daily workers.

A Game Changer for New Yorkers

This expansion will make a real difference in people’s lives. In a 2026 Community Service Society of New York (CSS) survey of more than 1,600 low-income New Yorkers receiving public benefits, the impact of discounted transit was unmistakable: 92 percent of Fair Fares recipients reported that the program makes moving around New York City vastly easier. And 81 percent emphasized that the money saved at the turnstile goes straight toward fundamental household essentials like rent, food, and utility bills.

When we make public transit affordable, we are not just lowering commuting expenses, we are keeping families housed and fed.

But even with half-priced fares, 64 percent of current Fair Fares users report that transit remains a heavy financial burden. As one Queens resident shared with CSS researchers, “Even with half off, it’s 3 bucks a day for a round trip. That’s a lot.”

To fully realize the promise of an equitable city, we must build on the momentum created by the Mayor and City Council by adopting key future reforms:

Automate Enrollment: Streamline access by automatically enrolling New Yorkers who already qualify through SNAP, Cash Assistance, or CityFHEPS housing vouchers.
Zero Fares for the Lowest Income: Make public transit entirely free for households earning below 150 percent of the federal poverty level.
Raise the Cap to 300 percent FPL: Extend half-priced fares to include all minimum-wage workers across New York City.
Protect Seniors on Access-A-Ride: Eliminate the age-64 cutoff for Access-A-Ride users so elderly residents are not forced back to paying full fare.
Improve affordability and reliability: Adopt free buses for all New Yorkers and increase investments in improvements, particularly in communities with limited transportation options.

The origins of Fair Fares goes back to an April 2016 CSS study that found that 58 percent of low-income New Yorkers rely on subways and buses to get around the city. For more than 300,000 people, public transit fares exceed 10 percent of their annual household budget, according to the study. When it was first launched, only city residents living at or below the poverty line were eligible for half-priced transit fares. Ten years later, the expansion of the program proves that our city can lead the nation in compassionate, common-sense policy. 

When we first imagined Fair Fares, working in partnership with Riders Alliance, elected officials and other advocates, we knew it had the potential to be a transformative program for New York’s working-class families. All it needed was the political will. We owe deep gratitude to the Mamdani Administration, the City Council Speaker, and the Council at large for turning vision into reality. Together, they have proven that an affordable transit system is within our reach. Now let’s keep moving forward.

David R. Jones, Esq., is President and CEO of the Community Service Society (CSS), New York’s leading advocate for low-income New Yorkers for more than 175 years, and a member of the MTA Board. The views expressed in this column are solely those of the author. The Urban Agenda is available on the CSS website at www.cssny.org

Today, New York stands at another such moment.

As Congress and the White House move forward with significant reductions in federal support for programs that millions of Americans depend on, the consequences are beginning to come into focus. These same political leaders are celebrating delivering tax cuts to the wealthy at the expense of working-class communities across the country, and in New York, who are left wondering how they will absorb the loss of health care, nutrition, housing, and income supports that help struggling families remain afloat. To be sure, these concerns are particularly acute in Black communities, where generations of economic inequality have left many households with fewer resources to weather financial shocks. 

Last year my organization, the Community Service Society of New York (CSS), released a statewide health care affordability survey that found that 68 percent of New Yorkers experienced at least one health care affordability burden in the past year, while 80 percent worry about affording health care in the future. Even more troubling, 66 percent reported delaying or going without needed medical care because of cost. Nearly one-third said medical expenses forced them to deplete savings, incur debt, or sacrifice other necessities. 

Those findings should serve as a warning.

If New Yorkers are already struggling to afford health care before the full impact of federal funding reductions is felt, what happens when support for health coverage and safety-net programs is reduced further? What happens to working families living paycheck to paycheck? What happens to seniors, people with disabilities, and children whose access to care depends on public programs?

The answer is simple: hardship increases. And hardship is not distributed equally. Black New Yorkers continue to face higher rates of poverty, lower household wealth, greater housing insecurity, and more significant barriers to economic mobility than many other groups. CSS’s longstanding research on economic insecurity—including our Unheard Third surveys—has consistently documented the precarious financial circumstances faced by millions of low-income New Yorkers. Our research shows that one-third of New York City’s voting-age citizens live in low-income households, underscoring just how many residents remain vulnerable to economic shocks. 

That vulnerability is occurring at a time when the cost of living continues to soar.

Housing remains unaffordable for far too many families. Transportation costs strain household budgets. Health care expenses continue to rise faster than wages. Food insecurity remains a daily reality in many neighborhoods. Federal spending cuts threaten to intensify every one of these challenges.

According to the Fiscal Policy Institute, H.R.1’s cuts to Medicaid and SNAP will cost New York $5.8 billion in FY27 and rise to$14.3 billion in FY30. The danger of these cuts is not just the loss of funding itself, but the cascading effect that follows. 

When food assistance is reduced, more families turn to food pantries. When health coverage becomes more difficult to obtain, people delay treatment until illnesses worsen. When housing assistance becomes harder to access, more families risk eviction and homelessness. Each problem compounds the next. The costs eventually shift to local governments, hospitals, schools, nonprofits, and neighborhoods.

Fortunately, New York is not without options.

City and state leaders must begin preparing now for what lies ahead. That means protecting access to affordable health coverage, strengthening rental assistance programs, investing in anti-hunger efforts, and preserving supports that help working families remain economically stable. A good example of this is the decision to expand the Fair Fares transit discount program in the city’s recently enacted budget. As a result, more than 1.3 million working-age New Yorkers will be eligible for half-priced bus and subway fares later this year. 

So, the question facing New York is not whether the federal cuts will have consequences. They will. The real question is whether we will act quickly enough to protect the communities that have the most to lose. History teaches us that moments of economic uncertainty often deepen existing inequities unless government intervenes intentionally and aggressively. Without action, the burden will once again fall disproportionately on Black communities and other New Yorkers already struggling to get by.

That outcome is not inevitable.

New York has a long tradition of standing up for working families and vulnerable residents when others turn away. The months ahead will test whether we remain committed to that tradition. The next crisis is not a distant possibility. It is already taking shape.

Our challenge now is to ensure that the people who can least afford another setback are not asked to bear the greatest sacrifice. The future of thousands of New York families depends on the choices we make today.

David R. Jones, Esq., is President and CEO of the Community Service Society of New York (CSS), the leading voice on behalf of low-income New Yorkers for more than 175 years. The views expressed in this column are solely those of the writer. The Urban Agenda is available on CSS’s website: www.cssny.org.

Rent-stabilized apartments are home to the largest share of low-income households of any housing type  in New York City, housing more than three times as many low-income households as public housing. They also represent the largest source of housing for Black and Latino New Yorkers.

According to the RGB, 62 percent of all evictions last year occurred in rent-stabilized buildings, with the highest concentration in the city's poorest borough: the Bronx. According to CSS’s 2025 Annual Survey of Housing and Economic Security, 67 percent of low-income tenants living in rent-stabilized apartments are unable to meet their basic needs or are just barely getting by, and 83 percent have little or no emergency savings.

The Board considered these facts during its final deliberations. Nevertheless, some landlords argue that it did not, claiming the vote reflected the mayor's campaign slogans more than the evidence. Those making that argument should listen to the Board's current landlord representative, Maksim Wynn.

Wynn correctly pointed out that while a rent increase may seem attractive to a financially struggling landlord, in practice it could result in a net loss of income. Why? Because if tenants are already struggling to pay their current rent, raising it will cause a significant number of them to fall behind on their rent payments.

Instead of raising rents and creating both an eviction crisis for tenants and a nonpayment crisis for landlords, Wynn proposed a series of public policy measures designed to reduce the costs landlords face rather than passing those costs on to tenants. He identified three major factors squeezing the margins of rent-stabilized building owners: property taxes, fuel costs, and insurance.

On property taxes, the city and state should pursue comprehensive property tax reform to fix a deeply regressive system—one that has allowed owners of the most expensive rent-stabilized apartments to avoid paying property taxes for 40 years while overtaxing the owners of the least expensive—and generally oldest—rent-stabilized apartments.

On fuel costs, we should continue supporting the transition to cleaner, more sustainable energy sources to reduce both building emissions and operating expenses, including the installation of heat pumps and induction stoves.

On insurance, the Zohran Mamdani administration is already advancing a city-backed insurance program for rent-stabilized buildings. This could go a long way toward slowing the unchecked growth in property insurance costs, which have become by far the fastest-growing expense for landlords.

But even before these reforms take effect, the RGB’s data has been clear: the majority of landlords remain in a strong financial position. Net Operating Income (NOI)—income minus expenses—increased by more than 6 percent last year, following increases of 12 percent the year before and 10 percent the year before that.

The rent freeze was fully justified and will have an enormous impact on the lives of millions of tenants in the years ahead. We must all work together to ensure this is not the end of the story, but the beginning of a much broader effort to advance affordability, sustainability, and fairness.

David R. Jones, Esq., is President and CEO of the Community Service Society (CSS), New York's leading advocate for low-income New Yorkers for more than 175 years, and a member of the MTA Board. The views expressed in this column are solely those of the author. The New Majority is available on the CSS website at www.cssny.org

Only three Black students were among the 777 offered admission this fall to Stuyvesant High School. Just one was among the 300 offered admission to by Staten Island Tech.

Overall, this year Black students received 3.5 percent of the 4,023 acceptance letters to specialized high schools, and Latino students received 6.5 percent. By contrast, Asian students were given more than half of all offers, followed by white students with 23 percent, school figures show.

So few Black and brown kids in the hallways of specialized high schools send a message that their absence is normal, that they cannot cut it academically, and that maybe they’re just not smart enough. That thinking is shameful—and dangerous. We all know it is not the case.

Several factors are in play. There is the controversial Specialized High Schools Admissions Test (SHSAT). Then there is the test-prep cottage industry that allows wealthy households—and others who view specialized-school admission as a last-ditch opportunity for a better life—to game the system, training their kids from early adolescence.

What is more, Black students comprise a shrinking constituency in the New York City school system. They make up only 19 percent of students, school figures show. The majority of school children, 42 percent, are Latino, while Asian students make up 19 percent and white students 16 percent.

As a result, the major racial minority groups hold equal or greater political sway than Blacks, which reflects the loss of nearly 200,000 Black city residents between 2000 and 2020, according to US Census data. That helps explain the lack of public outrage among our elected officials and education and racial-justice advocates about the current plight of Black specialized high school admissions.

The biggest culprit in this mess is the SHSAT, the sole standard for admission to eight of the nine specialized schools. LaGuardia High School, a performing arts school, instead requires auditions or portfolio reviews. The test is not used anywhere else in the United States.

I say dump the SHSAT and automatically admit the top three percent of all middle school students. At the very least, expand the criteria to include grade point average, extracurricular activities, and maybe even socioeconomic factors.

Mayor Zohran Mamdani, himself a Bronx High School of Science alum, has changed his position on the crisis. On the campaign trail, he called for abolishing the SHSAT because, he said, the exam was biased.  More recently, the mayor told The New York Times that the issue is a “struggle” for him. 

Stuyvesant High School’s admissions decisions were the most striking. It’s arguably the city’s most sought-after specialized public high school and offers to Black students this fall have reached their lowest level since at least 2014, which is as far back as the city’s public data goes. In the mid-1980s, Black and Latino students made up approximately 15 percent of Stuyvesant’s student body.

The scandal in plain sight is how the wealthy game the system. They invest tens of thousands of dollars and countless weekends in test prep. Worthy students from modest households cannot afford those classes while some households pay eye-popping amounts, from $3,500 annually to as much as $50,000.

In fact, weekend SHSAT tutoring has become so ingrained in some cultures that they spare no expense to give their children the opportunity to achieve a top score on the grueling, high-stakes exam.

It wasn’t always like this. Indeed, the specialized schools once enrolled in coming classes that were more representative of the broader school system. For instance, Black and brown kids comprised the majority of Brooklyn Technical High School’s student body from the early 1980s until the mid-1990s, with Black enrollment alone hovering above 30 percent. That began to change in 2002, when the Bloomberg administration expanded SHSAT-based admissions — which instead of further integrating specialized high schools contributed to fewer Black students being admitted.

The plight of Black and brown students matters because, nationally, it contributes to a drop in people of color at America’s elite universities, according to  National Center for Education Statistics. In nearly all highly selective private and public colleges — the 85 that accept 25 percent or fewer applicants — Black and Latino enrollment in recent years has declined or remained flat.

Separately, a new study published by Brown University found that high-scoring students from underrepresented minority groups were more likely to be “cascaded” into less selective colleges, which generally have lower graduation rates and postgraduate earnings.

It’s unacceptable that Black students are effectively locked out of the opportunity to study at our premier specialized high schools. Something must be done, because growing numbers of them are being denied access to the springboard into the nation’s top colleges and highest-paying jobs.

David R. Jones, Esq., is President and CEO of the Community Service Society of New York (CSS), the leading voice on behalf of low-income New Yorkers for more than 175 years. The views expressed in this column are solely those of the writer. The Urban Agenda is available on CSS’s website: www.cssny.org.

At a Glance: Key Facts About Essential Plan 200-250 Coverage Changes

• Nearly 500,000 New York State residents have lost their Essential Plan 200-250 health coverage because of federal changes.
• If you received a notice that your coverage ended, take action as soon as possible. You have until August 30 to sign up for a new insurance plan on the New York State of Health Marketplace.
• Even if you lose your insurance, you may still be able to access affordable care through community health centers, financial assistance programs, and other low-cost resources.
• Free and confidential help is available through Community Health Advocates (CHA), which assists New York State residents in exploring eligibility for insurance, finding low-cost care, and connecting with health insurance enrollment services.

On July 1, nearly 500,000 New York State residents lost their Essential Plan health coverage because of federal changes enacted through H.R. 1. If you've received a notice that your coverage ended, you may be wondering what happens next, whether you have other insurance options, or how you'll continue to access the medical care you need.

The good news is that you don't have to navigate these changes on your own.

Community Health Advocates (CHA), a program of CSS, provides free, personalized, and unbiased assistance to help New Yorkers understand their options, find affordable health care, resolve insurance problems, and connect with available resources.

Health coverage rules can be confusing, and the right option depends on your individual circumstances. Rather than trying to navigate these changes on your own, a trained advocate can help you understand your specific situation and identify the resources that are right for you.

Why are so many New Yorkers losing Essential Plan 200-250 coverage?

As of July 1, 2026, New Yorkers with incomes between 200 and 250 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) are no longer eligible for Essential Plan health coverage, as a result of federal changes from H.R. 1.

These changes have resulted in the loss of Essential Plan coverage for nearly 500,000 New Yorkers, including roughly 230,000 New York CIty residents. This includes many working New Yorkers who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford private health insurance.

Additional federal changes affecting Medicaid eligibility will start in January 2027, which will impact even more New Yorkers.

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Community Service Society NY (@cssnyorg)

What should you do if you've lost Essential Plan 200-250 coverage?

If you've received a notice that your Essential Plan coverage ended, you may still qualify for other health coverage with financial assistance. And even if you currently don't have health insurance, there are still resources that help New Yorkers access affordable health care.

If you've lost coverage, Community Health Advocates (CHA) can help you:

• Understand the notices you received about your coverage
• Review your health insurance options
• Connect you with enrollment assistance
• Resolve insurance and coverage issues
• Answer questions about medical bills and health care costs
• Access affordable health care services and financial assistance programs

Call 888-614-5400, option 3 or email cha@cssny.org to speak with a trained health care advocate. Use the Agency Finder to connect with a CHA Advocate in your community.

Where can you get low-cost care if you don't have health insurance?

Even if you don't have health insurance, there are still ways to access affordable care. Community Health Advocates (CHA) can help you explore your options.

Hospital Financial Assistance

All hospitals in New York are legally required to offer financial assistance to uninsured or underinsured patients who cannot afford their hospitals bills, according to New York's Hospital Financial Assistance Law.

Hospital financial assistance is an income-based discount on care provided in hospital settings.

You may qualify if:

• You live in New York State
• Your income is below 400 percent of the federal poverty line ($63,840 for a single person; $132,000 for a family of four in 2026)
• You are uninsured, you are insured but still have medical costs are more than 10 percent of your annual income, or you have exhausted your insurance

You can apply for hospital financial assistance at any time, and hospitals cannot deny you care if you have unpaid hospitals bills. Learn more about your rights to apply for hospital financial assistance.

Hospital-Based Clinics and Health Systems

Across New York State, you may qualify for non-emergency care at these facilities with hospital financial assistance or discounts based on your income.

In New York City, the NYC Health + Hospitals program offers NYC, providing access to H+H services for free or at low cost to eligible individuals. Visit their website or call 646-NYC-CARE (646-692-2273) for more information.

Federally Qualified Health Centers and State/Community-Based Health Centers

Local clinics offer full-service (non-emergency) care on a discounted basis according to your income and household size. Search for a clinic near you:

• Federally Qualified Health Center Locator
• New York State Health Center Locator

Note: In a medical emergency, go the emergency department at a hospital. Federal law prohibits hospitals from turning people away when experiencing a medical health emergency, regardless of their insurance status, immigration status, or ability to pay.

Additional Resources

For additional information on low-cost care in New York, see CHA's Guide to Finding Low-Cost Care.

Not sure which options are right for you?

That's exactly what Community Health Advocates (CHA) is here for. If you have more questions regarding your specific situation, contact us at 888-614-5400, option 3 Monday to Friday, 9am to 4pm, or email cha@cssny.org. Use the Agency Finder to connect with a CHA Advocate in your community.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Essential Plan?

The Essential Plan, or EP, is affordable, comprehensive health insurance for low-income adults living in New York who are not eligible for Medicaid. EP is provided through managed care plans and offers essential health benefits. 

The Essential Plan has no monthly premium and no deductible, but participants may pay a small fee called a co-payment for certain covered services.

Why are so many New Yorkers losing Essential Plan 200-250 coverage?

As of July 1, 2026, for people with incomes between 200-250% of the federal poverty level (FPL) are no longer eligible for the Essential Plan due to federal changes enacted in H.R. 1. These are moderate-income New Yorkers who are U.S. citizens and lawfully present immigrants. They earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but too little to afford commercial insurance through the state’s health insurance marketplace.

The new income limit is now 200% FPL, which equals $31,920 for an individual, and up to $66,000 for a family of four.

Can New York restore coverage in the future?

State lawmakers identified state funding to fill the federal void. However, this funding was not included in the final 2026-27 state budget.

The state government will have another opportunity to include this funding during the 2027 legislative session, and CSS will continue advocating for state action to restore affordable health coverage for the hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers affected by these federal policy changes.

Can I still see a doctor if I lose my health insurance?

Yes. There are affordable options around the state, such as hospital-based health clinics, federally qualified health centers and state/community-based health centers, and academic medical programs. (See the "Where can you get low-cost care if you don't have health insurance?" section above for more details.)

To better understand your options and get connected to affordable care resources, contact Community Health Advocates (CHA) by calling 888-614-5400, option 3 or emailing cha@cssny.org.

What does Community Health Advocates (CHA) do to help New Yorkers?

Community Health Advocates (CHA) provides free, personalized, unbiased assistance to help New Yorkers get, keep, and use health coverage. CHA helps consumers find low-cost or free care, solve billing issues, resolve medical debt, appeal insurance denials, access care, and understand their health care rights.

CHA operates through a live-answer helpline and in partnership with a network of community-based organizations serving consumers locally in 62 New York counties in over 35 languages. CHA offers assistance to all health care consumers, whether they have health insurance or not and no matter their immigration or citizenship status.

How do I contact Community Health Advocates (CHA)?

Call Community Health Advocates (CHA) at 888-614-5400, option 3 Monday to Friday, 9am to 4pm, or email cha@cssny.org. Use the Agency Finder to connect with a CHA Advocate in your community.

Sign up for the CSS newsletter

• Fair Fares is New York City's discounted transit program, providing half-priced subway, bus, and Access-A-Ride fares to low-income residents
• Eligibility is expanding from 150 percent to 200 percent of the federal poverty level
• Approximately 1.3 million working-age New Yorkers will be eligible when the expansion is implemented later this year
• In a recent survey of Fair Fares recipients, more than 80 percent say that Fair Fares helps them afford essentials like housing, food, and utilities
• Nearly two-thirds of Fair Fares users surveyed say that transit is still difficult to afford even with the discounted fares
• Visit the Fair Fares NYC website to check your eligibility and apply.

In June 2026, New York City announced the expansion of the Fair Fares NYC program, increasing eligibility from 150 percent to 200 percent of the federal poverty level. This expansion will extend eligibility for half-priced subway and bus fares to an estimated 1.3 million working-age New York City residents and will reduce transportation costs for many households struggling to afford the city's rising cost of living.

Research from the Community Service Society of New York (CSS) shows that Fair Fares helps people get to work, school, medical appointments, and essential services. But the research also shows that significant affordability and enrollment challenges remain.
 

Fair Fares Makes Public Transportation More Affordable

For many New Yorkers, using public transportation is not optional. It's how people get to work, attend school, attend medical appointments, buy groceries, and care for their families. But the cost of getting around the city can put a significant strain on families that are struggling to build economic security.

Fair Fares NYC helps address that challenge by providing low-income New Yorkers with a 50 percent discount on subway and bus fares. Since its inception in 2018, the program has become one of the city's most important tools for making New York more affordable.

CSS research shows that Fair Fares has a meaningful impact on people's daily lives. In early 2026, we conducted a survey of 1,653 New Yorkers who receive benefits like SNAP, Cash Assistance, or CityFHEPS housing vouchers, which closely overlap with Fair Fares eligibility:

• Nearly all survey respondents (92%) who use the program said it makes getting around New York City easier
• More than four in five (81%) said the savings help them afford other essentials such as housing, food, and utilities
   

The Expansion Will Help Hundreds of Thousands of Additional New Yorkers

Building on the program's success in making transit more affordable, New York City expanded Fair Fares eligibility from 150 percent to 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) in June 2026, significantly increasing the number of NYC residents who can receive discounted transit fares.

In total, the expansion is expected to make approximately 1.3 million working-age New Yorkers eligible for the program once its implemented later this year. An estimated 45 percent of newly eligible residents are regular commuters, meaning the expansion will reduce transportation costs for upwards of 500,000 people.

The expansion is particularly important at a time when many New Yorkers are struggling with the rising cost of living. Transportation is one of the expenses households cannot avoid. Expanding Fair Fares moves New York in a more equitable and just direction by easing this burden.
 

Too Many Eligible New Yorkers Still Miss Out on Fair Fares

While the expansion is an important step forward, research from CSS shows that many eligible New Yorkers are still not enrolled in the program.

In our 2026 survey of New Yorkers who receive public benefits, more than one in three respondents reported that they were not enrolled in Fair Fares.
 

If the program is not reaching a significant share of people who are already engaged with government services, then it is likely also missing many additional eligible residents who are not already connected to those services.

Survey respondents also reported barriers to accessing Fair Fares, including lengthy applications, confusing renewal processes, and delays that caused benefits to lapse.

These findings point to a significant opportunity to strengthen Fair Fares by making enrollment simpler and ensuring that everyone who qualifies can access this important benefit.
 

The Work Is Not Finished: What Comes Next for Fair Fares?

Even for New Yorkers who receive Fair Fares, transportation costs often remain an obstacle to economic security.

In our 2026 survey, 64 percent of Fair Fares users said that public transportation is still difficult to afford even with the program's half-priced discount. As one Queens resident explained, "Even with half off, it's 3 bucks a day for a round trip. That's a lot."

The findings suggest that additional reforms could make the program even more effective. CSS recommends:

• Automatically enrolling New Yorkers who have already been determined eligible through programs such as SNAP, Cash Assistance, or CityFHEPS.
• Make transit free for the lowest-income New Yorkers (under 150 percent of the federal poverty level), recognizing that even reduced fares can remain an economic hardship.
• Expand eligibility for half-priced fares up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level to include workers who earn minimum wage.
• Adopt free buses for all New Yorkers, improving affordability and bus speed across the city.
• Invest in improvements bus and subway reliability and safety, particularly in communities with limited transportation options.
   

Together, these reforms would help ensure that Fair Fares reaches everyone who qualifies and that the cost of public transportation is no longer a barrier to economic security.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Fair Fares NYC?

Fair Fares NYC is a New York City program that provides eligible residents with a 50 percent discount on MTA subway, local bus fares, and Access-A-Ride. The program, which was created in 2018, is designed to make public transit more affordable for low-income New Yorkers.

Who qualifies for Fair Fares?

New York City residents ages 18 to 64 who meet the program's requirements can qualify for Faires. In June 2026, New York City expanded eligibility to households with income up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). The exact implementation date when these newly eligible New Yorkers can enroll in Fair Fares remains TBD and is expected before the end of 2026

What is the income limit for Fair Fares?

Households with income up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) may be eligible. The table below shows the Fair Fares eligibility annual income limit, as of 2026:

How can someone apply for Fair Fares?

Eligible New Yorkers can apply through New York City's Fair Fares NYC website. The website provides ways to check your eligibility and submit your application.

What documents do I need to sign up for Fair Fares?

• All applicants need to submit proof of identity, residency, and income.
• Here is a list of suggested documentation.

How many New Yorkers use Fair Fares?

As of July 2026, more than 370,000 New York City residents are enrolled in Fair Fares.

Why aren't some eligible New Yorkers enrolled?

CSS survey respondents report barriers such as lengthy applications, confusing renewal processes, and delays that caused benefits to lapse. These findings suggest there are opportunities to simplify enrollment and increase participation among eligible New York City residents.

Why did New York City expand Fair Fares?

New York City expanded Fair Fares to make public transportation more affordable to a greater number of low-income residents. By increasing the eligibility limit from 150 percent to 200 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), the expansion makes an estimated 1.3 million working-age New Yorkers eligible for half-priced subway and bus fares. The change is expected to help hundreds of thousands of additional commuters.

Does Fair Fares really make a difference in people's lives?

Yes. CSS research shows that Fair Fares has a meaningful impact on the daily lives of low-income New Yorkers who are enrolled.

In a 2026 survey of 1,653 New York City residents receiving public benefits, nearly all Fair Fares users (92%) said the program makes it easier to get around the city, and more than four in five (81%) said the savings help them afford other essentials such as housing, food, and utilities. By reducing transportation costs, Fair Fares is improving access to work, school, and health care while simultaneously helping recipients pay their bills.

Why are advocates calling for further changes to Fair Fares?

CSS research has shown that many low-income New Yorkers still see public transit costs as a barrier to economic stability, even with a half-priced discount. CSS ultimately envisions a Fair Fares program that offers free transit for New Yorkers at or below 150 percent of the federal poverty level, and discounted fares for those up to 300 percent, which would finally include New Yorkers making minimum wage.

Additionally, when Access-A-Ride users age out of Fair Fares at age 65, they must pay the full fare. While subway and bus riders can transition into the MTA Reduced Fare program for senior citizens, the senior discount is not available for Access-A-Ride. Access-A-Ride users who qualify for Fair Fares should have their half-priced fares extended past the current cutoff at age 64.

Sign up for the CSS newsletter

A two-year rent freeze provides rent stabilized tenants with much needed relief. Although it is not—and should not be—a means-tested program, rent-stabilized apartments are home to the largest share of low-income households of any housing type in New York City, with over three times more low-income households than in public housing. These apartments are also the largest source of housing for Black and Latino New Yorkers.

According to the RGB, last year 62 percent of evictions were in rent-stabilized buildings, with the largest share coming from the poorest borough — the Bronx. According to CSS’s 2025 Annual Survey of Housing and Economic Security, 67 percent of low-income rent-stabilized tenants cannot make ends meet or are barely managing to get by, and 83 percent have little or no emergency savings.

The Board heeded this data in their final deliberations. Some landlords, however, claim they did nothing of the sort, and instead pursued a vote that aligns with the mayor’s campaign slogans instead of the facts. But those making this claim should listen to the Board’s current landlord representative, Maksim Wynn, who offered a thoughtful explanation for why a rent freeze is right for both tenants and landlords.

Wynn rightly noted that a rent hike might sound sweet to a cash-strapped landlord, but in reality it could result in a net loss of revenue for that owner. Why? Because if tenants can barely afford to pay the rent they are currently charged, then when the rent goes up a sizable portion will go into arrears. 

Instead of raising rents and creating an eviction crisis for tenants and a non-payment crisis for landlords, Wynn suggested a suite of public actions to reduce landlords expenses instead of raising tenants’ rents. He identified the three factors driving tight margins for rent stabilized landlords are taxes, fuel, and insurance. 

On taxes, the city and state must pursue comprehensive property tax reforms in order to rebalance a thoroughly regressive system—one which charges the owners of the most expensive rent-stabilized apartments nothing in property taxes for 40 years, while overcharging the owners of the cheapest (and oldest) rent-stabilized apartments. CSS has strenuously advocated for exactly this type of reform and will continue doing so in the next state legislative session. 

On fuel, we must continue to support a transition to environmentally friendlier alternative energy sources to curb both building emissions and costs. As the Climate and Community Institute has argued, New York City can lead the way in scaling up conversions to heat pumps and induction stoves, creating a market to bulk-buy these goods, thus bringing down purchasing prices in the short term and lowering operating costs over time.

On insurance, the Mamdani administration is already pursuing a city-backed insurance program for rent-stabilized buildings. Though in its early days, the city’s housing department has already initiated a Request for Expressions of Interest to help design the program and promised $100 million toward its launch. This could go a long way toward reversing the skyrocketing price of property insurance, which is by far landlords’ fasting growing cost factor.

But even before any of this takes place, the RGB’s data has been clear: most landlords are doing all right. Net Operating Income (NOI, or landlords’ revenues minus costs) grew by more than six percent last year—and that’s after they grew by 12 percent the previous year, and 10 percent the year before that. Over the long-term, rent-stabilized property ownership has been very lucrative, with inflation-adjusted NOI rising 57 percent since 1990. Roughly nine percent of rent-stabilized buildings are considered distressed, but this is well within the normal range, and the city and state have specialized programs meant to help such buildings.

As the Board’s chair Chantella Mitchell wrote in her statement explaining her vote, “The data make clear that current economic conditions place meaningful constraints on tenants, while also showing that, in aggregate, most owners remain able to meet rising costs without experiencing comparable levels of financial distress.” The rent freeze was entirely justified, and it will make a tremendous impact on millions of tenants’ lives in the coming years. We must all work together to ensure this is not the end of the story, but the beginning of a larger push toward affordability, sustainability, and justice.

David R. Jones, Esq., is President and CEO of the Community Service Society of New York (CSS), the leading voice on behalf of low-income New Yorkers for more than 175 years. The views expressed in this column are solely those of the writer. The Urban Agenda is available on CSS’s website: www.cssny.org.

My name is David R. Jones, and I am President and CEO of the Community Service Society of New York. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the importance of maintaining a strong, independent Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) as a cornerstone of police accountability, public trust, and effective government.

I want to begin by stating clearly that supporting police accountability and supporting public safety are not competing values. The overwhelming majority of police officers serve New Yorkers honorably and professionally. But no public institution—and certainly not one with the extraordinary authority to detain, search, arrest, and use force—should be exempt from meaningful civilian oversight. A system that investigates itself cannot command public confidence.

That is precisely why the CCRB exists.

The CCRB serves as New York City's independent civilian watchdog, investigating allegations of police misconduct and providing an avenue for ordinary New Yorkers to seek accountability when they believe their rights have been violated. Its existence reflects a simple democratic principle: those entrusted with public power must be accountable to the public they serve.

This principle is especially important given the NYPD's long and well-documented history of racial disparities in policing. For decades, Black and Latino New Yorkers have borne the brunt of aggressive enforcement strategies, excessive force, unconstitutional stop-and-frisk practices, and other forms of misconduct. Successive mayoral administrations have failed to adequately confront these patterns, making independent civilian oversight not merely desirable, but essential.

Unfortunately, the CCRB's effectiveness has too often been undermined.

A court-ordered disciplinary review released in 2024 concluded that officers involved in unconstitutional stop-and-frisk encounters "rarely, if ever" faced discipline, even when misconduct had been substantiated. That finding raises serious concerns about whether accountability mechanisms are functioning as intended and whether disciplinary recommendations are receiving the weight they deserve.

The problem is not simply procedural. It is about legitimacy.

When New Yorkers take the time to file complaints, participate in investigations, and cooperate with oversight bodies, they expect that the process will matter. When disciplinary findings can be disregarded or weakened, public confidence erodes. Communities become less likely to report misconduct, less likely to trust law enforcement, and less likely to believe that government institutions operate fairly.

An independent CCRB is therefore not a bureaucratic luxury. It is a critical component of government effectiveness.

Effective government requires transparency. It requires accountability. And it requires credible checks and balances. Far from creating inefficiency, independent oversight helps identify patterns of misconduct before they become costly legal liabilities, federal investigations, or crises of public trust. A strong CCRB protects both the public and the many police officers who serve with integrity by helping ensure that misconduct is addressed rather than ignored.

Recent allegations of racially disparate vehicle searches further underscore the continued need for independent monitoring and public accountability. Concerns about unequal treatment under the law cannot simply be dismissed or left solely to internal review processes. New Yorkers deserve confidence that complaints will be evaluated objectively and fairly by an entity independent of the department being investigated.

As this Commission evaluates the effectiveness of city agencies and institutions, I urge you to view the CCRB not as an expendable oversight body but as an essential safeguard of democratic governance. Weakening civilian oversight would not increase efficiency; it would weaken accountability and diminish public trust. Strengthening independence, transparency, and responsiveness, on the other hand, would improve both the legitimacy of policing and the effectiveness of city government.

New Yorkers should never have to choose between public safety and civil rights. We can—and must—have both.

A strong, independent Civilian Complaint Review Board helps make that possible.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony.

Despite difficult budget constraints and competing priorities, the Council maintained support for the Managed Care Consumer Assistance Program (MCCAP), the Speaker's Initiative that sustains CSS's Health Initiatives Department, and the Next Door Project. These investments will ensure that thousands of New Yorkers continue to receive trusted assistance navigating complex health care systems, overcoming barriers created by criminal records, and accessing the services and opportunities they need to improve their lives.

The Council's investment is especially timely. As federal policies threaten health coverage for an estimated 230,000 New Yorkers through cuts to Medicaid and the Essential Plan, demand for unbiased health coverage counseling and enrollment assistance will continue to grow. MCCAP will play an increasingly vital role in helping New Yorkers understand their options, maintain coverage whenever possible, and access needed care. CSS looks forward to continuing to partner with the Council and the Mamdani Administration to ensure these services can meet rising demand.

CSS also appreciates that the city budget preserves funding for New York City Benefits (NYCB) through FY27. While the program was not baselined in this year's budget, maintaining funding will allow tens of thousands of New Yorkers to continue accessing critical public benefits. We remain committed to working with city leaders to secure permanent, multi-year funding that provides long-term stability for this essential program.

In addition, CSS applauds the decision to expand eligibility for Fair Fares from 150 percent to 200 percent of the federal poverty level. This expansion will make reduced-fare transit available to an estimated 1.3 million low-income New Yorkers, helping more residents afford transportation to work, school, health care, and other essential destinations.

Finally, after years of litigation and months of negotiations, we are pleased that the Mamdani Administration and the Council have resolved their dispute over how to reform and expand the CityFHEPS rental assistance program, meaningfully helping shelter residents and low-income tenants without straining the city’s budget. The plan finalized in the budget will put thousands of New York families on a path away from homelessness and displacement and toward housing stability.

This budget reflects New York City's continued commitment to protecting programs that advance health, economic opportunity, and equity for New Yorkers. CSS looks forward to building on this partnership with the Mamdani Administration and the Council to strengthen the City's safety net and ensure all New Yorkers have the resources they need to thrive.

###

The Community Service Society of New York (CSS) has worked with and for New Yorkers since 1843 to promote economic opportunity and champion an equitable city and state. We power change through a strategic combination of research, services, and advocacy to make New York more livable for people facing economic insecurity. By expanding access to health care, affordable housing, employment opportunities, debt assistance, and more, we make a tangible difference in the lives of millions. Join us at www.cssny.org.

Mamdani must break with the past, send a message about his authority over the NYPD and restore credibility to the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB), the department’s chief independent watchdog.

Let me be clear. I support law enforcement and protecting our communities. The overwhelming majority of police officers treat members of the public with respect and believe in the rule of law. That said, good policing does not give the NYPD free rein to put a boot on the neck of people of color. Crime fighting should not come at the expense of New Yorkers’ civil rights. The mayor’s stance on the CCRB – he backed away from public musings about giving the board the final say on NYPD disciplinary decisions – deserves close scrutiny.  He promised to end the NYPD’s tradition of abusive tactics that focus on Black and brown New Yorkers.  

The department’s past transgressions magnify the significance of Mamdani’s slow walk or full-out turnaround from his campaign promise to make dramatic changes at NYPD.  His pledge included doing away with a controversial gang database and removing police from explosive mental health emergencies.

The CCRB is essential to good law enforcement in light of the NYPD’s long, well-documented tradition of racialized policing, targeting Black and Latinx people for aggressive policing, excessive force and unconstitutional stop and frisk.  Every mayor since the late 1980s – Edward Koch, David Dinkins, Rudolph Giuliani, Michael Bloomberg, Bill de Blasio and Eric Adams – all tolerated or gave wink-and-nod approval to the ugly and aggressive tactics. None of them used their bully pulpit to do the right thing. 

We’re not talking ancient history. The CCRB has been defanged in the face of recent – and ongoing – systematic misconduct.  In September 2024, a court-ordered, 500-page disciplinary review concluded city police officers who engage in unconstitutional stops and frisks “rarely, if ever” face discipline, even when the CCRB substantiated misconduct.

Independent civilian review plays an important role in civic discourse.  For some tragic reason, elected city and state officials as well as community activists no longer speak out publicly against police excesses.  For instance, there has been little public outcry in the wake of an explosive lawsuit filed this year that alleged the NYPD searched Black drivers’ cars 10 times more often than white drivers’. 

In fact, Black and Latinx drivers made up over 84 percent of reported vehicle searches between 2022 and last year, the lawsuit said.  Drivers of color were in the NYPD crosshairs without any objective reason to suspect them of wrongdoing, said the suit filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union, NAACP State Conference and Bronx Defenders. 

In recent years, police have criminalized poverty, placing a priority on predominantly Black and Latinx homeless and fare beaters, whose encounters with law enforcement tend to be tied to high inflation, income inequality and the cost of public transportation. Even so, One Police Plaza and City Hall downplay the consequences as the number of summonses and arrests skyrocket.

Former Mayor Eric Adams forced out two successive CCRB interim chairs after their vocal support for greater independence put them on the NYPD’s radar.  Two of Adams’ police commissioners short-circuited several CCRB investigations and tinkered with the NYPD discipline matrix in ways that lowered penalties for all police officers found to have committed serious offenses.  Mamdani would do well to undo the corrupt changes thereby boosting confidence in the CCRB’s independence.

Mayor Mamdani’s backpedaling from his NYPD-related campaign promises began six months ago, at his very first joint news conference with Police Commissioner Jessica Tish.  The new mayor stood silent as she defended the gang database he denounced during his campaign.  More recently, the Mayor has voiced support for making tweaks and retaining the database.  He also publicly apologized for his 2020 comments calling the NYPD “racist, anti-queer and a major threat to public safety.”

Mamdani’s reversal on CCRB independence illustrates him coming face to face with a truism that confronts every elected official and will figure in determining what type of mayor he becomes: Life often forces us to choose between doing the right thing vs. doing the expedient thing for the right reasons.  The demands of the office can corrupt with damaging effects, tempting leaders to cynically cast away their loyalties, promises and principles.

Our previous mayor fell far short in his pledge to rein in abusive behavior by police officers and hold the NYPD accountable.  Mayor Mamdani has an opportunity to send a different message to the city’s Black and brown communities, rank and file officers and the police unions: that police misconduct in any form will not be tolerated.  And it starts with demanding a strong CCRB.

David R. Jones, Esq., is President and CEO of the Community Service Society of New York (CSS), the leading voice on behalf of low-income New Yorkers for more than 175 years. The views expressed in this column are solely those of the writer. The Urban Agenda is available on CSS’s website: www.cssny.org.

By extending eligibility to an estimated 1.3 million working-age residents, Mayor Mamdani, Speaker Menin, and the New York City Council have made transportation more affordable for hundreds of thousands of additional New Yorkers. Approximately 45 percent of those newly eligible are regular commuters, meaning this investment will lower their transit costs, help them keep more of their paychecks, and stay connected to economic opportunity.

Alongside Riders Alliance, the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA (PCAC), other advocates, and elected officials, the Community Service Society has long championed Fair Fares. Our research has consistently shown that the program helps people get to work, school, medical appointments, and other places they need to go while making it easier to afford basic necessities like housing and food.

The Mayor put it best during a City Hall press conference announcing the budget agreement: “No one should be priced out of exploring their own city.” We couldn’t agree more.

###

The Community Service Society of New York (CSS) has worked with and for New Yorkers since 1843 to promote economic opportunity and champion an equitable city and state. We power change through a strategic combination of research, services, and advocacy to make New York more livable for people facing economic insecurity. By expanding access to health care, affordable housing, employment opportunities, debt assistance, and more, we make a tangible difference in the lives of millions. Join us at www.cssny.org.

• The NYC Rent Guidelines Board voted to freeze rents for one- and two-year leases in roughly one million rent-stabilized apartments.
• The decision affects over two million New Yorkers living in rent-stabilized housing.
• CSS's latest research found that 67% of low-income rent-stabilized tenants struggle to make ends meet.
• The data showed landlords' net operating income increased 6.2% last year and more than 30% over the last three years.
• The vote followed months of public hearings, reviews of economic and financial data, and testimony from tenants and landlords.

On June 25, the New York City Rent Guidelines Board (RGB) voted to freeze rents for one- and two-year leases in the city's approximately one million rent-stabilized apartments.

The decision reflects the economic realities facing rent-stabilized tenants across New York City: rents have been rising faster than incomes, and tenants have been struggling while landlords have continued to profit.

Here are four data-driven reasons that point to why a rent freeze was the correct decision.

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Community Service Society NY (@cssnyorg)

Rent-Stabilized Tenants Cannot Afford Another Increase

Rent-stabilized apartments are the most important source of housing for New Yorkers with low incomes, and many tenants living in these homes are struggling to make ends meet.

According to CSS's most recent Annual Survey of Housing and Economic Stability:

• 67 percent of rent-stabilized tenants said they are struggling to get by financially
• 83 percent said they have little or no savings
• More than half (55 percent) said they cannot afford an unexpected emergency expense

When we asked low-income New Yorkers living in rent-stabilized housing which issues they want NYC's leaders to focus on, 56 percent chose "reducing the cost of housing" as the runaway top choice. (Reducing street homelessness was second at 18 percent.)

These findings paint a clear picture of financial insecurity. For many households, even a modest rent increase would mean making difficult tradeoffs between housing and other necessities such as food, transportation, health care, and utilities.

The Need for Relief is Especially Urgent in the Bronx

The Bronx is home to the highest concentration of rent-stabilized apartments and also some of the toughest economic conditions. Unemployment rates and poverty rates are highest in the Bronx compared to other boroughs, and on average, tenants in the Bronx saw their incomes actually go down by over five percent last year, when accounting for inflation.

For the hundreds of thousands of rent-stabilized households in the Bronx, a rent freeze offers stability at a time when many families are already struggling to keep pace with the rising cost of living.

Data Shows That Rent-Stabilized Landlords Remain Financially Stable

Landlords are not facing a widespread financial crisis.

Net operating incomes for rent-stabilized apartments went up 6 percent over the past year, following increases of 12 percent and 10 percent in the previous two years. In total, this compounds into an overall net operating income growth of more than 30 percent over the past three years.

At the same time, rent collection rates have increased citywide while the share of distressed buildings declined and remains at the historical median for the last 35 years.

The Long-Term Trends Support a Freeze

Over the long term, the Rent Guidelines Board's data shows that landlords' finances have remained strong while rents have consistently risen.

According to the RGB's 2026 Income and Expense Study, landlords' net operating income has increased by 56.6 percent since 1990 after adjusting for inflation. In Brooklyn, net operating income has gone up by 168 percent over the same period.

These long-term trends demonstrate that rent-stabilized housing has remained profitable over time. While operating costs have fluctuated, landlords' incomes have grown substantially in the short- and long-term term, even after accounting for inflation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the Rent Guidelines Board (RGB) vote to do?

The Rent Guidelines Board voted to freeze rents for one- and two-year leases in New York City's approximately one million rent-stabilized apartments.

How many apartments are affected?

The decision applies to approximately one million rent-stabilized apartments in New York City. It does not affect any other units.

Who lives in rent-stabilized housing?

Rent-stabilized apartments are open to all New Yorkers who can afford them, but they house a significant share of New York City's low- and moderate-income households and are one of the city's most important sources of low-cost housing. These units house the largest number of low-income tenants of any housing type in the city, as well as the largest numbers of Black and Latino New Yorkers.

What is the CSS Annual Survey of Housing and Economic Security?

The CSS Annual Survey of Housing and Economic Security surveys New Yorkers statewide every year on issues such as housing, employment, public benefits, finances, and policy views. The most recent edition surveyed 4,000 adults, including 2,000 New York City residents, between September 9 and October 2, 2025. The margin of error is +/- 1.55% at the 95% confidence level.

What is net operating income (NOI)?

Net operating income (NOI) is a measure of a building's income after operating expenses are paid. It does not account for debt service. The Rent Guidelines Board uses NOI as a key indicator of buildings' financial conditions.

How often does the Rent Guidelines Board vote on rents?

The Rent Guidelines Board votes annually on allowable rent increases for rent-stabilized apartments after reviewing economic data and holding public hearings. This year's decision applies only to eligible rent-stabilized lease renewals that commence on or after October 1, 2026 through September 30, 2027.

Sign up for the CSS newsletter

Rent stabilized apartments house the largest number of low-income tenants of any housing program, as well as the largest numbers of Black and Latino New Yorkers. After four years in which the RGB raised rents by a cumulative 12.6 percent, our Annual Survey of Housing and Economic Security showed that a great many rent-stabilized tenants were struggling to make ends meet, with two thirds of low-income stabilized tenants straining financially and over four in five reporting that they have little or no emergency savings.

This rent freeze will be particularly impactful to them and may well prevent a swell of evictions and homelessness. As our research has shown, stable rents are tremendously impactful to tenants. Thanks to the Rent Guidelines Board, life in New York City just got a little more stable.

###

The Community Service Society of New York (CSS) has worked with and for New Yorkers since 1843 to promote economic opportunity and champion an equitable city and state. We power change through a strategic combination of research, services, and advocacy to make New York more livable for people facing economic insecurity. By expanding access to health care, affordable housing, employment opportunities, debt assistance, and more, we make a tangible difference in the lives of millions. Join us at www.cssny.org.